Why oh why am I supposed to feel sorry for yet another delinquent who resists arrest and get shot?

Let's go through the chain of events leading up to his shooting:

1. loud music disturbs the neighbor - if he simply kept the volume at normal levels there would have been no call in the first place2. gets drunk 5x the legal limit to drive which is VERY drunk and impairs judgment3. carries a gun while drunk out of his mind. I don't know about you, but if you plan on getting drunk better put any weapons away first, if you're too drunk to drive you're too drunk to carry weapons including small sharp objects like scissors4. points the weapon at the officers5. suspiciously closes the garage door

If he stopped before ANY of the first 4 stages, chances are he'd still be alive. This is not systemic police brutality or system racism, it's systemic stupidity.

Police then shoot through the garage door.

I don't know if that's the best outcome, but it is justifiable homicide in self-defense. Don't go around threatening to shoot cops for fuck's sake.

"Any homeowner can have a gun in their home that is true. However, when law enforcement arrives at your home doing lawful duty and you're confronted with law enforcement and they give you an order to drop that gun, the last thing anyone should do is raise that gun," said Sheriff Mascara.

Tree wrote:Why oh why am I supposed to feel sorry for yet another delinquent who resists arrest and get shot?

Tree. Just for clarity; I think of you not in the slightest. You do not figure into any of my thoughts, so you are clearly not supposed to feel anything, because for all intents and purposes, insofar as I am concerned, you might as well not exist. /cheers

Did anyone talk about feeling sorry for him?

No; therein ends your typical transparent ignorant trolling.

Feel free to respond to the actual topic matter; not the ranting delusions in your braincase.

If the jury doesn't think that the police are responsible then don't award the family any money, whether the police were at fault here is not what this story is about.

When the Jury decided to give the family $1 for the funeral, and $1 to each of his three children, they are effectively giving the family the middle finger and telling those kids that's all their father was worth, a lousy $1.

There was no need to add that insult to the injury already caused to the family, if they didn't think they should receive any money then rule in favor of the state and don't award any money.

Contrary to popular belief, full-immersion holographic sex will not destroy society.

If the jury doesn't think that the police are responsible then don't award the family any money, whether the police were at fault here is not what this story is about.

When the Jury decided to give the family $1 for the funeral, and $1 to each of his three children, they are effectively giving the family the middle finger and telling those kids that's all their father was worth, a lousy $1.

There was no need to add that insult to the injury already caused to the family, if they didn't think they should receive any money then rule in favor of the state and don't award any money.

Probably the jury meant to award them nothing but failled to understand some technicallity in our overly-complicated judicial system.

“..the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” Tolstoy

The look was bad. However, in some states they base and award on the amount the Jury felt each side was at fault. So if they felt the guy that was shot was 99.9% at fault they would still award for the .1%. It appears callous and perhaps it was but there may be a legit reason for them to award what appears to be such a paltry amount.

"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time." “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire